Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Hacking Back & the Digital Wild West
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
dave.dittrich
50%
50%
dave.dittrich,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/6/2018 | 1:08:14 AM
"Active Response Continuum" is a better phrase, better model, than "active defense"
I fully agree with Levi, that current proposals to modify existing computer crime statutes are insufficiently nuanced, insufficiently framed, and not ready to move forward. He is right that the consequences of allowing the private sector to become too agressive, too casually, will likely make the situation for law enforcement more difficult rather than easier. I published my own analysis of the ACDC Act 2.0 (and proposals to improve it) along the lines of Levi's suggestions. You can find that analysis on Medium (search for "Medium Dittrich Active Defense Certainty Act", since URLs are not allowed in comments) and read about the Active Response Continuum (search "Dittrich Active Response Continuum").

I believe the end goal here should be to facilitate victims' reporting of meaningful evidence of computer crimes in a timely manner to law enforcement, to better enable the U.S. government to use its sovereign levers of power (diplomacy, intelligence, military, economic sanctions and law enforcement, DIME-LE for short) to pursue criminal actions and violations of international norms and laws against foreign and domestic actors. The private sector does not have the authorities, nor the "whole of government" options, necessary to reduce international incidents like those Levi listed.

There are many examples of corporations using civil legal process (e.g., botnet "takedowns" using temporary restraining orders) within the U.S. justice system. When and if a victim determines that the situation is sufficiently grave to justify violating domestic laws and taking aggressive uncooperative actions on systems not under their authority, outside of civil or criminal legal process, they already have the option under U.S. law to make an affirmative defense for their actions. The idea in the ACDC Act of forcing a harmed intermediary to bring suit in civil court for damages resulting from an entity taking ill considered "active defense measures" seems to me to be unfair and unecessary.
macker490
50%
50%
macker490,
User Rank: Ninja
3/10/2018 | 8:48:51 AM
prevention better than prosecution
Prevention is better than Prosecution

The Internet has been described as a "Fool's Paradise" from time to time.   I always liked that characterization.

The troubles on the net today largely originate in a general failure to authenticate.

Consider for example the troubles with fraudulent 1040 tax forms.    Or the new mortgage loan scams.  or the grand-daddy of them all: e/mail "phishing" (BEC).

For prevention we need to turn to the work of Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman.    These gentlemen understood this issue and knew what they needed to do.   What we need to do is to understand our part in their work: authentication.

When my daughter sat down in the office at the Credit Union to open a new account: that is when the Credit Union -- and my daughter -- should have authenticated the keys needed -- for her online interface(s).

This will need to be incorporated into systems as packaged technology.

We are talking about Public Key Cryptology: PGP, PKI, SSL, TLS, X.509 GnuPG ... it's "out there" -- but to make it work it is necessary to authenticate the keys.

I could give you the "fingerprint" for my key: 4DEA0DAD.  and you could download it from the servers.   But you still wouldn't know who I am.  Once you find a way to identify me and verify the fingerprint on my key THEN you can SIGN my key.   This will make my key VALID in your system meaning you are satisfied that you know who I am.    This doesn't happen with X.509: it's too easy for anybody to acquire an x.509 certificate -- and -- generally -- users have no idea what the certificates are supposed to look like or what data they should contain.

That doesn't matter: HERE -- but -- at the Credit Union or with my tax software and such : yes, it does matter.

Note: the most important aspect of PKI/PGP/GnuPG --- is AUTHENTICATION.

what was the cost of hacking last year:   I'm remembering $600B - .8% of GDP
este1976
50%
50%
este1976,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/10/2018 | 10:45:21 PM
Re: prevention better than prosecution
Good analysis and wonderful say sir. Your in-depth post has cleared my many doubts. Of course, prevention is better than prosecution.


Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-13545
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In Horner Automation Cscape 9.90 and prior, improper validation of data may cause the system to write outside the intended buffer area, which may allow arbitrary code execution.
CVE-2019-13541
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In Horner Automation Cscape 9.90 and prior, an improper input validation vulnerability has been identified that may be exploited by processing files lacking user input validation. This may allow an attacker to access information and remotely execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2019-17367
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
OpenWRT firmware version 18.06.4 is vulnerable to CSRF via wireless/radio0.network1, wireless/radio1.network1, firewall, firewall/zones, firewall/forwards, firewall/rules, network/wan, network/wan6, or network/lan under /cgi-bin/luci/admin/network/.
CVE-2019-17393
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
The Customer's Tomedo Server in Version 1.7.3 communicates to the Vendor Tomedo Server via HTTP (in cleartext) that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors. Basic authentication is used for the authentication, making it possible to base64 decode the sniffed credentials and discover the username and pa...
CVE-2019-17526
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in SageMath Sage Cell Server through 2019-10-05. Python Code Injection can occur in the context of an internet facing web application. Malicious actors can execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system, as demonstrated by an __import__('os').pop...